Born This Way?

Two men with gay jeans.

Is there a gene for homosexuality?

Any idea of a genetic basis for behaviour must be anathema to the Catholic Church, or to humanists. It has to be; if behaviour is genetically determined, there is no free will, so no chance for heaven or salvation. We are reduced to the status of lower animals or machines. No more human dignity.

But that is no concern of science’s. Just the facts, ma’am. What are the facts?

Whenever some new science comes to the fore, for a while, as Arthur C. Clarke observed, it looks like magic. For a while, it explains everything. When electricity was discovered, it was at once considered the secret of life. Hence Frankenstein’s monster. When magnetism was discovered, it was also considered the secret of life, and we heard about “animal magnetism.” When radiation was discovered, for a while, we were x-raying everything. Radiation gave us Spiderman, the Hulk, and many movie monsters.

In the seventies, eighties and nineties, thanks to Watson and Crick, genetic science was hot, so the tendency for a several decades or so was to see it as the secret of life too. We heard discoveries not only of a “gay gene,” but a “schizophrenia gene,” a “manic depression gene,” a “depression gene,” an “alcoholic gene,” and an “aggression gene”; no doubt others. None of these “discoveries,” though, have proven to be reproducible in later studies.

Psychologists are perfectly sanguine to admit now that there is apparently no schizophrenia gene, or manic depression gene, or depression gene, and have moved on back to environmental explanations.

But politics complicates the case of the “homosexual gene.” Too many laws were passed, otherwise immoral deeds done, inalienable human rights declared, and constitutional judgements handed down based on the assumption that there was a “homosexual gene.” Those in power in a range of fields, most notably government, now have too much to lose.

Of course, there could be a secondary genetic component to homosexual behaviour. But is this sensibly described as a “gay gene” or deterministic?

Here are a couple of hypothetical possibilities which would result in some trace of a genetic element to homosexuality:

1. Suppose that generally physically attractive boys are more likely to be molested by homosexual pedophiles or pederasts? And suppose that such molestation tends to make them homosexual? As physical appearance is genetic, that would show up in twin tests, for example, as a “gay gene.” 
2. Suppose that any significant difference that sets you apart from others, such as being left-handed, makes you think of yourself as “different,” and therefore less inclined to go along with the general consensus on other things. This tendency to experimentation might, in turn, make you more inclined to experiment with or decide to prefer homosexual unions. Since being left-handed is genetic, this would also show up in twin tests as a “gay gene.” 

But are these really therefore genetically determined behaviours?

Interestingly, it has been suggested that 1. physically attractive men are more likely to be homosexual, and 2. left-handed men are more likely to be homosexual. Odd, that…

Against this, there is an insurmountable argument against a “gay gene”: any such gene would eliminate itself within a couple of generations, through failure to reproduce.